索罗斯2018年1月25日达沃斯
2018年1月25日达沃斯
世界经济论坛现在每年都会邀请我就全球局势发表看法，这似乎已成为一种惯例。我原本打算用半小时陈述观点，再用半小时回答各位的问题，但最终我不得不用近一个小时的时间来发表演讲，因为我知道我们所面对的问题有多么严重。
01 目前所处的历史阶段
在我看来，我们正处在相当痛苦的历史阶段。
开放的社会面临危机，而各种独裁的政权和“黑手党”国家—以普京治下的俄罗斯为代表——却正在崛起。特朗普希望把美国建立成一个“黑手党”国家，但他做不到，因为美国的宪法、各种机构以及充满活力的民众不会允许他得逞。
不管喜不喜欢，我和我的基金会都在为捍卫过去的民主成果而战。我的基金会过去专注于所谓的发展中世界，但由于美国和欧洲的开放社会也受到威胁，我们选择将一半以上的预算投入到美国和欧洲，因为这里发生的事情将对全世界造成负面的影响。
然而光捍卫过去的民主成果还不够；我们必须维护开放社会的价值观，以抵御未来的侵蚀。开放社会的敌人始终存在，每一代人都应该致力于呵护开放社会得以存在的环境。
对此，最好的防御措施就是有原则地反击。开放社会的敌人尝到了胜利的甜头，因此变得肆无忌惮，而由此引发的不满情绪，恰恰给我们提供了反击的机会。匈牙利目前的处境就是这样。
我的基金会过去的目标是“保护开放社会免受敌人侵害，树立政府责任以及培养批判性思维”。但如今的形势已经恶化。不仅开放社会的生存面临挑战，就连我们整个文明的存续都面临威胁。朝鲜领导人金正恩以及美国总统特朗普应该对此负责。为了掌控权力，他们愿意拿核战争做赌注。
但问题的根结还不在此。人类利用自然来实现建设和毁灭的能力不断增长，但自我管控的能力却无法与之匹配。
我们常常忽视了核战争的巨大威胁。确实，美国拒绝接受朝鲜成为核国家，这无形中将美国推向了核战争的道路。朝鲜因此有强烈的动机迅速发展自己的核能力，这反过来又刺激美国采取先发制人的手段。用发动核战争来预防核战争，这明显是一种自相矛盾的战略。
事实就是，朝鲜已成为核国家，任何军事行动都无法扭转这个局面。唯一合理的战略就是接受这个现实。
这就要求美国与所有相关方进行合作，首先就是中国。在牵制朝鲜的问题上，中国拥有最大的话语权，但不太愿意使用。如果对朝鲜施压太狠，朝鲜政权可能会垮台，大量朝鲜难民将逃往中国。另外，中国对美国、韩国和日本心存芥蒂，不愿意在朝鲜问题上对它们有过多帮助。
人类文明面临的另一大威胁是气候变化，这也导致了被动迁徙的发生。关于气候变化问题的讨论已经很多，这里我就不再赘述。
我认为，特朗普政府是对世界的威胁，但这应该只是暂时的，到2020年或更早的时间，这种威胁将会消散。特朗普树敌明显多于树友，这就是我认为民主党为何会在2018年中期选举中获胜的原因。
我个人的目标是要帮助美国重建一个有效的两党制。这不仅需要民主党在2018年中期选举获胜，还要求民主党力争实现非党派的选区重划、任命合格的法官、程序合理的民调等目标。
02 IT行业的垄断地位
我想多花点时间来讨论另一个全球性问题：大型IT平台公司的崛起和垄断行为。
这类公司往往扮演着创新和自由化的角色。但随着脸书和谷歌的规模越来越大，它们反而成为创新的阻力，我们直到现在才开始意识到它们所造成的一系列问题。
公司通过榨取环境来赚取利润。采矿和石油公司榨取自然环境；社交媒体榨取的则是社会环境。后者的行为更加恶劣，因为社交媒体潜移默化地影响着人们的思想和行为。这已经对民主的运转产生了深远的负面影响，特别是选举的公正性。
互联网平台公司的典型特征是人际网络和边际收益，这也解释了它们迅速成长的原因。网络的效应确实超乎想象，但并不具有可持续性。脸书花了八年半时间积累了10亿用户，随后又花了四年多时间再度获得10亿用户。按照这个速度，不出3年时间脸书的用户增长将陷入停滞。
脸书和谷歌垄断了一半以上的互联网广告收入。为了保持领导地位，它们需要扩大网络，吸引更多用户的关注。目前，这两家公司为用户提供了便利的平台，用户在平台上停留的时间越久，给它们创造的价值就越多。
内容提供商也给社交媒体的盈利做出了贡献，因为它们不可避免地要使用社交媒体。
脸书和谷歌惊人的利润也主要得益于它们对平台上的内容既不承担责任，也不支付费用。它们声称自己仅仅是内容的传播者。但是近乎垄断的地位也使它们成为了公用事业一样的实体，从而应该接受更加严格的监管，以便维护市场竞争、创新以及公平和公开参与性。
社交媒体的商业模式建立在广告之上，它们真正的客户是广告主。但新的业务模式正在形成，不仅依赖广告收入，还直接向用户销售商品和服务。社交媒体利用掌握的数据，通过差别定价的方式将服务打包出售，以此获得更多利润。
社交媒体公司通过欺骗的手段，故意将用户的注意力转移到它们提供的服务上。这种行为十分有害，尤其是对青少年。互联网平台与博彩公司颇具相似性。赌场开发的技术能将赌徒引导到特定的赌桌，让他们输光所有钱。
社交媒体公司也一样，他们正在引导人们放弃自主思考的能力。对民众思维的塑造力正越发集中到少数几家公司手中。我们需要努力捍卫哲学家约翰.斯图尔特.密尔所称的“思想的自由”。而对成长于数字时代的人们来说，一旦失去，就难以重获这种自由。
这种状况也具有深远的政治影响。失去思想自由的民众很容易被操纵，这一点在2016年美国大选期间得到了极好的印证。
不仅如此，更加危险的局面即将出现。
但面对集权国家规模巨大且成长迅速的市场，美国IT巨头也不得不选择低头。这些巨头的股东们把自己看作是宇宙的主宰，但事实上，他们只是自己垄断地位的奴隶。对这些巨头而言，其全球主导地位被打破也只是一个时间的问题。
达沃斯正是宣告这个时点即将来临的重要场合。政府的监管和税收措施对这些IT巨头不利，欧盟竞争委员玛格丽特·维斯塔格也将对它们当头棒喝。
IT巨头垄断地位与不平等加剧之间的联系也越来越多地被人们认识到。股权集中在少数几个股东手中只是一方面，更为重要的是这些垄断巨头相互之间也展开了竞争。结果就是，垄断巨头吞噬了有可能成为竞争对手的初创公司。它们还准备占领由人工智能开启的新领域，例如无人驾驶汽车。
创新对失业的影响取决于政府的政策。在社会政策制定方面，欧盟（尤其是北欧国家）比美国更有远见，它们保护的是工人，而非就业岗位。欧盟愿意为失业工人的再培训或再就业买单，这给予了北欧国家工人更大的安全感，从而使他们比美国的工人更愿意拥抱科技创新。
而互联网巨头则没有意愿为自身行为的社会影响承担责任。在美国，监管机构的威慑力也不足以应对互联网巨头的社会影响力。欧盟则不太有这样的压力，因为欧洲目前还没有形成互联网平台巨头。
在对待垄断的态度上，欧盟和美国存在差异。美国的法律主要针对通过收购行为所产生的垄断，而欧盟的法律则禁止一切垄断行为。另外，欧洲法律对隐私和数据的保护力度大于美国。
美国法律采取了一种奇怪的解释：对垄断造成的损害的度量取决于价格上涨的幅度。这几乎是不可能被证明的，因为互联网巨头提供的服务多数是免费的。
欧盟花了七年时间来搜集有关谷歌垄断的证据，但在欧盟竞争委员玛格丽特·维斯塔格的努力下，证据搜集的进程大大加快，甚至影响到了美国民众对待谷歌垄断问题的态度。
03 民族主义的兴起及应对措施
三十年前，我在前苏联建立了自己的基金会。当时的时代主题是国际治理与合作，那时的欧盟还处在崛起当中，而前苏联则不断衰落。
今天的国际潮流则是民族主义。俄罗斯正在复兴，欧盟则面临放弃价值观的威胁。
正如大家经历的那样，随着前苏联解体，俄罗斯成为了推行民主主义意识形态的“黑手党国家”。
现在，我们的目标是帮助拯救欧盟。2008年金融危机之后，欧盟失去了昔日的光彩，这主要是因为过时的条约和对紧缩政策的迷信拖累了经济。原本属于主权国家之间的自愿联盟变为了债权人和债务人的关系，联盟的自愿和平等性随之丧失。
其结果是，目前很多人不认同欧盟。作为欧洲重要国家的英国正在退出欧盟的过程中，而波兰和匈牙利政府则极其反对欧盟的价值观。其他一些国家中，反欧洲的政党正在崛起，这包括了奥地利的执政联盟。意大利也将在今年3月份举行决定国家未来走向的大选。
那么应该如何防止欧盟放弃原本的价值观呢？我们需要对欧盟进行彻底的改革。
从欧盟层面来看，主要的问题是如何对待欧元。是要求所有成员国最终采用欧元，还是永久维持现状？按照《马斯特利赫特条约》，答案无疑是第一个选择。但欧元所表现出的缺陷却是这个条约所未能预见的。
我坚决反对放任欧元的问题，让其威胁到欧盟的未来。摆在面前的事实是，那些不符合资格的国家踊跃申请加入欧盟，而那些符合条件的国家却反对欧盟，保加利亚是个例外。
另外，我希望英国留在欧盟内部，或者最终重新加入欧盟，但如果加入欧盟意味着采用欧元，这种设想就不可能实现。
欧盟面临的出路可以归结为在“多速”和“多轨”之间的选择。按照“多速”的模式，成员国必须事先就最终的结果达成一致；按照“多轨”的模式，成员国可以通过自由结成联盟来实现特定的目标。很明显，“多轨”模式更加灵活，但欧盟官员却青睐“多速”模式，因为这更有助于维持欧盟结构的完整性。
从成员国层面来看，其政党整体与时代脱节。以往的左右翼之分已被亲欧洲和反欧洲之分所掩盖。
在德国，近期的选举结果使基督教民主联盟与基督教社会联盟之间的联盟关系变得难以维系。
在英国，无论是保守党还是工党，其内部在是否脱欧的问题上均存在分歧。这加大了脱欧谈判的复杂性，也使英国在决定其作为国家对欧洲的态度上面临相当大的困难。
其他欧洲国家也可能会面临类似的处境，但法国是个例外。
从选民层面来看，由欧盟之父让·莫内创建的自上而下的过程已失去活力。现在，我们需要把针对欧洲机构的自上而下的程序与针对选民的自下而上的程序结合起来。
迄今为止，法国总统马克龙显示出最为积极的态度。他当初参加竞选时就获得了亲欧洲选民的拥护，目前他的战略重心在2019年的欧洲议会选举，而这也需要得到选民的支持。
尽管我花了那么大篇幅分析欧洲局势，但从历史的角度来看，亚洲发挥的作用将重要的多。中国是一个崛起中的大国。将中国纳入到全球治理的框架中显得十分重要，这有助于避免摧毁人类文明的世界大战。
英文：
Good evening. It has become something of an annual Davos tradition for me to give an overview of the current state of the world. I was planning half an hour for my remarks and half an hour for questions, but my speech has turned out to be closer to an hour. I attribute this to the severity of the problems confronting us. After I’ve finished, I’ll open it up for your comments and questions. So prepare yourselves.
I find the current moment in history rather painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of dictatorships and mafia states, exemplified by Putin’s Russia, are on the rise. In the United States, President Trump would like to establish a mafia state but he can’t, because the Constitution, other institutions, and a vibrant civil society won’t allow it.
Whether we like it or not, my foundations, most of our grantees and myself personally are fighting an uphill battle, protecting the democratic achievements of the past. My foundations used to focus on the so-called developing world, but now that the open society is also endangered in the United States and Europe, we are spending more than half our budget closer to home because what is happening here is having a negative impact on the whole world.
But protecting the democratic achievements of the past is not enough; we must also safeguard the values of open society so that they will better withstand future onslaughts. Open society will always have its enemies, and each generation has to reaffirm its commitment to open society for it to survive.
The best defense is a principled counterattack. The enemies of open society feel victorious and this induces them to push their repressive efforts too far, this generates resentment and offers opportunities to push back. That is what is happening in places like Hungary today.
I used to define the goals of my foundations as “defending open societies from their enemies, making governments accountable and fostering a critical mode of thinking”. But the situation has deteriorated. Not only the survival of open society, but the survival of our entire civilization is at stake. The rise of leaders such as Kim Jong-Un in North Korea and Donald Trump in the US have much to do with this. Both seem willing to risk a nuclear war in order to keep themselves in power. But the root cause goes even deeper.
Mankind’s ability to harness the forces of nature, both for constructive and destructive purposes, continues to grow while our ability to govern ourselves properly fluctuates, and it is now at a low ebb.
The threat of nuclear war is so horrendous that we are inclined to ignore it. But it is real. Indeed, the United States is set on a course toward nuclear war by refusing to accept that North Korea has become a nuclear power. This creates a strong incentive for North Korea to develop its nuclear capacity with all possible speed, which in turn may induce the United States to use its nuclear superiority preemptively; in effect to start a nuclear war in order to prevent nuclear war – an obviously self-contradictory strategy.
The fact is, North Korea has become a nuclear power and there is no military action that can prevent what has already happened. The only sensible strategy is to accept reality, however unpleasant it is, and to come to terms with North Korea as a nuclear power. This requires the United States to cooperate with all the interested parties, China foremost among them. Beijing holds most of the levers of power against North Korea, but is reluctant to use them. If it came down on Pyongyang too hard, the regime could collapse and China would be flooded by North Korean refugees. What is more, Beijing is reluctant to do any favors for the United States, South Korea or Japan– against each of which it harbors a variety of grudges. Achieving cooperation will require extensive negotiations, but once it is attained, the alliance would be able to confront North Korea with both carrots and sticks. The sticks could be used to force it to enter into good faith negotiations and the carrots to reward it for verifiably suspending further development of nuclear weapons. The sooner a so-called freeze-for-freeze agreement can be reached, the more successful the policy will be. Success can be measured by the amount of time it would take for North Korea to make its nuclear arsenal fully operational. I’d like to draw your attention to two seminal reports just published by Crisis Group on the prospects of nuclear war in North Korea.
The other major threat to the survival of our civilization is climate change, which is also a growing cause of forced migration. I have dealt with the problems of migration at great length elsewhere, but I must emphasize how severe and intractable those problems are. I don’t want to go into details on climate change either because it is well known what needs to be done. We have the scientific knowledge; it is the political will that is missing, particularly in the Trump administration.
Clearly, I consider the Trump administration a danger to the world. But I regard it as a purely temporary phenomenon that will disappear in 2020, or even sooner. I give President Trump credit for motivating his core supporters brilliantly, but for every core supporter, he has created a greater number of core opponents who are equally strongly motivated. That is why I expect a Democratic landslide in 2018.
My personal goal in the United States is to help reestablish a functioning two-party system. This will require not only a landslide in 2018 but also a Democratic Party that will aim at non-partisan redistricting, the appointment of well-qualified judges, a properly conducted census and other measures that a functioning two-party system requires.
The IT monopolies
I want to spend the bulk of my remaining time on another global problem: the rise and monopolistic behavior of the giant IT platform companies. These companies have often played an innovative and liberating role. But as Facebook and Google have grown into ever more powerful monopolies, they have become obstacles to innovation, and they have caused a variety of problems of which we are only now beginning to become aware.
Companies earn their profits by exploiting their environment. Mining and oil companies exploit the physical environment; social media companies exploit the social environment. This is particularly nefarious because social media companies influence how people think and behave without them even being aware of it. This has far-reaching adverse consequences on the functioning of democracy, particularly on the integrity of elections.
The distinguishing feature of internet platform companies is that they are networks and they enjoy rising marginal returns; that accounts for their phenomenal growth. The network effect is truly unprecedented and transformative, but it is also unsustainable. It took Facebook eight and a half years to reach a billion users and half that time to reach the second billion. At this rate, Facebook will run out of people to convert in less than 3 years.
Facebook and Google effectively control over half of all internet advertising revenue. To maintain their dominance, they need to expand their networks and increase their share of users’ attention. Currently they do this by providing users with a convenient platform. The more time users spend on the platform, the more valuable they become to the companies.
Content providers also contribute to the profitability of social media companies because they cannot avoid using the platforms and they have to accept whatever terms they are offered.
The exceptional profitability of these companies is largely a function of their avoiding responsibility for– and avoiding paying for– the content on their platforms.
They claim they are merely distributing information. But the fact that they are near- monopoly distributors makes them public utilities and should subject them to more stringent regulations, aimed at preserving competition, innovation, and fair and open universal access.
The business model of social media companies is based on advertising. Their true customers are the advertisers. But gradually a new business model is emerging, based not only on advertising but on selling products and services directly to users. They exploit the data they control, bundle the services they offer and use discriminatory pricing to keep for themselves more of the benefits that otherwise they would have to share with consumers. This enhances their profitability even further – but the bundling of services and discriminatory pricing undermine the efficiency of the market economy.
Social media companies deceive their users by manipulating their attention and directing it towards their own commercial purposes. They deliberately engineer addiction to the services they provide. This can be very harmful, particularly for adolescents. There is a similarity between internet platforms and gambling companies. Casinos have developed techniques to hook gamblers to the point where they gamble away all their money, even money they don’t have.
Something very harmful and maybe irreversible is happening to human attention in our digital age. Not just distraction or addiction; social media companies are inducing people to give up their autonomy. The power to shape people’s attention is increasingly concentrated in the hands of a few companies. It takes a real effort to assert and defend what John Stuart Mill called “the freedom of mind.” There is a possibility that once lost, people who grow up in the digital age will have difficulty in regaining it. This may have far-reaching political consequences. People without the freedom of mind can be easily manipulated. This danger does not loom only in the future; it already played an important role in the 2016 US presidential elections.
But there is an even more alarming prospect on the horizon. There could be an alliance between authoritarian states and these large, data-rich IT monopolies that would bring together nascent systems of corporate surveillance with an already developed system of state-sponsored surveillance. This may well result in a web of totalitarian control the likes of which not even Aldous Huxley or George Orwell could have imagined.
The countries in which such unholy marriages are likely to occur first are Russia and China. The Chinese IT companies in particular are fully equal to the American ones. They also enjoy the full support and protection of the Xi Jingping regime. The government of China is strong enough to protect its national champions, at least within its borders.
US-based IT monopolies are already tempted to compromise themselves in order to gain entrance to these vast and fast growing markets. The dictatorial leaders in these countries may be only too happy to collaborate with them since they want to improve their methods of control over their own populations and expand their power and influence in the United States and the rest of the world.
The owners of the platform giants consider themselves the masters of the universe, but in fact they are slaves to preserving their dominant position. It is only a matter of time before the global dominance of the US IT monopolies is broken. Davos is a good place to announce that their days are numbered. Regulation and taxation will be their undoing and EU Competition Commissioner Vestager will be their nemesis.
There is also a growing recognition of a connection between the dominance of the platform monopolies and the rising level of inequality. The concentration of share ownership in the hands of a few private individuals plays some role but the peculiar position occupied by the IT giants is even more important. They have achieved monopoly power but at the same time they are also competing against each other. They are big enough to swallow start-ups that could develop into competitors, but only the giants have the resources to invade each other’s territory. They are poised to dominate the new growth areas that artificial intelligence is opening up, like driverless cars.
The impact of innovations on unemployment depends on government policies. The European Union and particularly the Nordic countries are much more farsighted in their social policies than the United States. They protect the workers, not the jobs. They are willing to pay for re-training or retiring displaced workers. This gives workers in Nordic countries a greater sense of security and makes them more supportive of technological innovations than workers in the US.
The internet monopolies have neither the will nor the inclination to protect society against the consequences of their actions. That turns them into a menace and it falls to the regulatory authorities to protect society against them. In the US, the regulators are not strong enough to stand up against their political influence. The European Union is better situated because it doesn’t have any platform giants of its own.
The European Union uses a different definition of monopoly power from the United States. US law enforcement focuses primarily on monopolies created by acquisitions, whereas EU law prohibits the abuse of monopoly power irrespective of how it is achieved. Europe has much stronger privacy and data protection laws than America. Moreover, US law has adopted a strange doctrine: it measures harm as an increase in the price paid by customers for services received – and that is almost impossible to prove when most services are provided for free. This leaves out of consideration the valuable data platform companies collect from their users.
Commissioner Vestager is the champion of the European approach. It took the EU seven years to build a case against Google, but as a result of her success the process has been greatly accelerated. Due to her proselytizing, the European approach has begun to affect attitudes in the United States as well.
The rise of nationalism and how to reverse it
I have mentioned some of the most pressing and important problems confronting us today. In conclusion, let me point out that we are living in a revolutionary period. All our established institutions are in a state of flux and in these circumstances both fallibility and reflexivity are operating at full force.
I lived through similar conditions in my life, most recently some thirty years ago. That is when I set up my network of foundations in the former Soviet empire. The main difference between the two periods is that thirty years ago the dominant creed was international governance and cooperation. The European Union was the rising power and the Soviet Union the declining one. Today, however, the motivating force is nationalism. Russia is resurgent and the European Union is in danger of abandoning its values.
As you will recall, the previous experience didn’t turn out well for the Soviet Union. The Soviet empire collapsed and Russia has become a mafia state that has adopted a nationalist ideology. My foundations did quite well: the more advanced members of the Soviet empire joined the European Union.
Now our aim is to help save the European Union in order to radically reinvent it. The EU used to enjoy the enthusiastic support of the people of my generation, but that changed after the financial crisis of 2008. The EU lost its way because it was governed by outdated treaties and a mistaken belief in austerity policies. What had been a voluntary association of equal states was converted into a relationship between creditors and debtors where the debtors couldn’t meet their obligations and the creditors set the conditions that the debtors had to meet. That association was neither voluntary nor equal.
As a consequence, a large proportion of the current generation has come to regard the European Union as its enemy. One important country, Britain, is in the process of leaving the EU and at least two countries, Poland and Hungary, are ruled by governments that are adamantly opposed to the values on which the European Union is based. They are in acute conflict with various European institutions and those institutions are trying to discipline them. In several other countries anti-European parties are on the rise. In Austria, they are in the governing coalition and the fate of Italy will be decided by the elections in March.
How can we prevent the European Union from abandoning its values? We need to reform it at every level: at the level of the Union itself, at the level of the member states and the level of the electorate. We are in a revolutionary period; everything is subject to change. The decisions taken now will determine the shape of the future.
At the Union level, the main question is what to do about the euro. Should every member state be required to eventually adopt the euro or should the current situation be allowed to continue indefinitely? The Maastricht Treaty prescribed the first alternative but the euro has developed some defects that the Maastricht Treaty didn’t foresee and still await resolution.
Should the problems of the euro be allowed to endanger the future of the European Union? I would strongly argue against it. The fact is that the countries that don’t qualify, are eager to join, but those that do qualify have decided against it, with the exception of Bulgaria. In addition, I would like to see Britain remain a member of the EU or eventually rejoin it and that couldn’t happen if it meant adopting the euro.
The choice confronting the EU could be better formulated as one between a multi-speed and a multi-track approach. In a multi-speed approach, member states have to agree in advance on the ultimate outcome; in a multi-track approach, member states are free to form coalitions of the willing to pursue particular goals on which they agree. The multi-track approach is obviously more flexible but the European bureaucracy favored the multi-speed approach. That was an important contributor to the rigidity of the EU’s structure.
At the level of the member states, their political parties are largely outdated. The old distinction between left and right is overshadowed by being either pro or anti-European. This manifests itself differently in different countries.
In Germany, the Siamese twin arrangement between the CDU and the CSU has been rendered unsustainable by the results of the recent elections. There is another party, the AfD further to the right than the CSU in Bavaria. This has forced the CSU to move further to the right in anticipation of next year’s local elections in Bavaria so that the gap between the CSU and the CDU has become too great. This has rendered the German party system largely dysfunctional until the CDU and CSU break up.
In Britain, the Conservatives are clearly the party of the right and Labor the party of the left, but each party is internally divided in its attitude toward Brexit. This complicates the Brexit negotiations immensely, and makes it extremely difficult for Britain as a country to decide and modify its position towards Europe.
Other European countries can be expected to undergo similar realignments with the exception of France, which has already undergone its internal revolution.
At the level of the electorate the top-down initiative started by a small group of visionaries led by Jean Monnet carried the process of integration a long way but it has lost its momentum. Now we need a combination of the top-down approach of the European authorities with the bottom-up initiatives started by an engaged electorate. Fortunately, there are many such bottom-up initiatives; it remains to be seen how the authorities will respond to them. So far President Macron has shown himself most responsive. He campaigned for the French presidency on a pro-European platform and his current strategy focuses on the elections for the European Parliament in 2019 – and that requires engaging the electorate.
While I have analyzed Europe in greater detail, from a historical perspective what happens in Asia is ultimately much more important. China is the rising power. There were many fervent believers in the open society in China who were sent to be re-educated in rural areas during Mao’s Revolution. Those who survived returned to occupy positions of power in the government. So the future direction of China used to be open-ended; but no more.
The promoters of open society have reached retirement age and Xi Jinping, who has more in common with Putin than with the so-called West, has begun to establish a new system of party patronage. I’m afraid that the outlook for the next twenty years is rather bleak. Nevertheless, it is important to embed China in institutions of global governance. This may help to avoid a world war that would destroy our entire civilization.
That leaves the local battlegrounds in Africa, the Middle East and Central Asia. My foundations are actively engaged in all of them. We are particularly focused on Africa, where would-be dictators in Kenya, Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of Congo have perpetrated electoral fraud on an unprecedented scale and citizens are literally risking their lives to resist the slide into dictatorship. Our goal is to empower local people to deal with their own problems, assist the disadvantaged and reduce human suffering to the greatest extent possible. This will leave us plenty to do well beyond my lifetime.
